The Jews, (he says,) were subject to Law from the period of the Exode to the coming of CHRIST.--We listen to the statement of a familiar fact without surprise: but we are inclined to express some stronger feeling than surprise when we discover that this is _the whole_ of the proof concerning the infancy of the Colossal Man! Does this writer then mean to tell us that the Jews were all Mankind? If they were _not_ the Colossal Man,--if, instead of being the whole Human Race, they were one of the most inconsiderable and least known of the nations,--an isolated family, in fact, inhabiting Canaan,--what becomes of the analogy? We really pause for an answer.... Such a theory might have been expected, and would have been excusable if it had proceeded from a Sunday-school-boy of fifteen,--who had read the Bible indeed, but who was unacquainted with any book besides; and so, had jumped to the conclusion that the Jews were "the World." But Dr. Temple is a Schoolmaster, and therefore must surely know better. If he is fanciful enough to regard Mankind as a Colossal Man; and unphilosophical enough to consider that History is capable of being divided into three periods,--corresponding with Infancy, Boyhood, and Manhood; and forgetful enough of the facts of the case to assume that mankind was subject to Law _until_ the coming of CHRIST, thenceforward to be emancipated therefrom:--yet Dr. Temple ought not to be so unreasonable as to pretend that Canaan was coextensive with the World,--the descendants of Abraham with the posterity of Noah! This amiable writer is inexcusable for excluding from the corporate entity of the Human Race the four great Empires of the world, (to say nothing of primæval Egypt and mysterious India;) and for the sake of elaborating a worthless allegory, identifying the least of all people with the Colossal Man, who, (according to his own account of the matter,) represents the aggregate of all the nations. Once more. The Mosaic Law was not given till B.C. 1491. But the world was then upwards of 2500 years old. Far more than one-third, therefore, of recorded time had already elapsed. How does it happen that the theory under consideration gives no account of those 2500 years; or rather, does not begin to be applicable, until they have rolled away?